Re: FreeBSD web site updated
From: jpd (read_the_sig_at_do.not.spam.it.invalid)
Date: 6 Oct 2005 17:36:46 GMT
On 2005-10-06, Harald Hanche-Olsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> + jpd <email@example.com>:
>| Also, the default font size is too small for my taste,
> It is set to 69% (of the user's preference).
That is an interesting approach at fscking with the viewer. I have strong
preferences on font sizes (being lazy, *big fonts* for easy reading), and
my browser is instructed accordingly. So why put everyting in sub-footnote
size? It doesn't make sense from a readability perspective.
> However, you can choose an alternate style sheet if your browser
> allows it (and if not, get a better one): One that sets the text to
> 93%, which is better. (Why not 100%? Beats me.)
Yes you can. It doesn't make sense to require me to do so, however.
> Maybe they ought to have interchanged the two style sheets, making the
> 93% one the default, and the 69% one optional.
Just maybe, yes. The one place where I'd appreciate getting fonts set is
for printing, because firefox doesn't have separate font size selectors
for viewing and printing. This means I cannot print without either
fscking with my font preferences or getting rather huge typefaces on
paper. However, it really is a browser issue and should not need to
be worked around in random websites' stylesheets. So no site has any
business whatsoever resetting the main font size to something much
smaller than given user preferences.
 And its layout for paper still assumes the width of the window even
if explicitly told what the paper size is. Its printing is just broken.
-- j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .